Unlawful Behaviour

Saturday, August 5th 2023

Introduction

Singapore, renowned for its multiculturalism and religious diversity, upholds strict laws to foster social cohesion and maintain harmony within its society. The Singaporean government faces the challenge of striking a delicate balance between safeguarding individual rights and preserving public order.

In comparison to other common law and Western countries, Singapore's approach to addressing infractions and behaviours that disrupt social harmony, stability, or public peace is notably stringent. This has earned Singapore the moniker "The Fine City," a phrase that carries a dual meaning, emphasising the consequences one may face for transgressions.

The primary aim of this article is to offer insights into areas of law that may vary from what foreigners are accustomed to in their own societies. This article does not delve into the moral justifications or considerations behind legislative choices. Rather, its focus is to provide you with a better understanding of Singapore's legal landscape and its unique social and cultural aspects. Please bear in mind that the information provided is non-exhaustive and intended for guidance purposes.

It is important to note that Singapore operates under a common law system; however, Muslims in the country are also governed by the Administration of Muslim Law Act. This Act grants jurisdiction to the Sharia Court over matters such as marriage, inheritance, and divorce concerning the Muslim community[1].

Understanding and respecting the cultural and legal nuances of Singapore is essential for visitors to ensure a harmonious and respectful experience during their time in the country.

Note: The information provided in this article is for reference purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal advice. If you require legal advice, please seek assistance from a legal professional.

The Influence of Asian Values ideology

For perspective, it's important to understand Asian Values, a term that originated in the early 1990's to describe a political ideology that encompasses society, culture and history. Many countries in South East Asia, including Singapore, subscribe to this doctrine in varying degrees, believing that it offers an alternative model for governance and development that is more suited to their cultural context.

At the heart of the Asian Values ideology lies the concept of the collective over the individual. This approach, which arguably stems from Confucian philosophies prevalent in many Asian societies, emphasises societal harmony, discipline, and respect for authority. The idea is that prioritising the well-being of the society as a whole often takes precedence over the rights and freedoms of individuals[1]

Additionally, filial piety, a key tenet of Confucianism which emphasises respect not only for one's parents but also for elders in the community, is deeply ingrained into Singaporean society. These values extend beyond the family unit and are manifested in the respect for hierarchy and authority within political, social, and corporate settings.

One of the contentious points of the Asian Values debate, especially for a Western observer, could be the concept of 'freedom.' While Western societies often equate freedom with civil liberties such as freedom of speech, press, and assembly, Singapore, like many Asian societies, may prioritise economic freedom and stability. The argument is that these are the most critical freedoms for ensuring citizens have access to basic needs and opportunities.

Highlighting this dichotomy, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew once commented on different approaches to governance and societal control, stating:

If you like it this way, that is your problem. But that is not the path we choose.
Senior Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, reflecting on jurisdictions that fail to restrain or punish crime[2].

This encapsulates Singapore's chosen path, valuing societal order and progress over unrestrained individual liberties.

The Singaporean perspective is echoed by Chang-Yau Hoon, a notable scholar in this field, in his 2004 paper on Asian Values[3]. Hoon suggests that Asian societies, unlike their Western counterparts, are not centred on the individual but on the family and, by extension, the nation. He succinctly encapsulates the theory of Asian Values in four key points:

First, human rights are not universal and neither can they be globalised. They emerge differently according to the context of particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions.

Second, Asian societies are not centred on the individual but on the family. The nation is like a big family. It supposedly comes naturally for Asians to let the combined interests of the family and the nation go before the interests of each individual.

Third, Asian societies rank social and economic rights over individual's political rights.

Finally, the right of a nation to self-determination includes a government's domestic jurisdiction over human rights. This implies that other nations should not interfere with the internal affairs of a state, including its human rights policy.
Revisiting the Asian Values Argument used by Asian Political Leaders and its Validity, Chang-Yau Hoon, 2004

As can be seen, the political and societal fabric of Singapore, as influenced by the concept of Asian Values, provides an alternative perspective to the Western understanding of governance and societal norms. While the prominence of the formal concept of Asian Values may have waned since its peak in the 1990s, the underlying principles continue to exert a significant influence on governance and social norms. By understanding this alternate perspective, we gain deeper insight into the underpinning principles that shape the unique laws and regulations, which will be explored in the following sections of this article. 

Political Activities involving Foreigners

In Singapore, maintaining public order is of utmost importance, and as such, public demonstrations, assemblies, and processions with a political agenda organised by non-Singaporeans are not permitted[1].

The Ministry of Home Affairs emphasises that Singapore's political, social, and moral decisions are the prerogative of its citizens. Consequently, the police do not grant permits for such events involving non-Singaporeans, particularly if their purpose is to promote their own political causes or interfere in the country's domestic politics, policies, and governance.

Speakers' Corner, Hong Lim Park

The Speakers' Corner, located at Hong Lim Park, was established in 2000 to provide a designated space for Singaporean citizens to freely express their views on matters of concern. Citizens and entities in Singapore can organise assemblies and processions at the Speakers' Corner without the need for a permit, as long as they adhere to the exemption conditions outlined in the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2016.

Given how densely populated Singapore is, the approach to allow public protests at Speakers’ Corner, or elsewhere with a permit, allows the authorities to assess and manage public-order risks.

The Government takes a zero-tolerance approach to illegal demonstrations and protests as these may lead to public order incidents. The regulation of public protests allows the Government to uphold public order to ensure a peaceful and stable society.
Singapore Police Force (Public Affairs), 15 February 2021[1]

It's important to note that public speaking at the Speakers' Corner is limited to Singaporean citizens, and only Singaporean citizens or permanent residents can participate in the assembly or procession[2].

Furthermore, the event must not touch upon matters related to religion or incite feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will, or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore[3].

Indoor Public Assembly

Foreigners are also restricted from speaking at public assemblies that occur indoors[1].

Case Studies

  • In 2013, twenty-one Malaysians were arrested for protesting in Singapore against the results of the 2013 Malaysian general election[1].
    • In 2020, Wham Kwok Han Jolovan, 40, a Chinese citizen (Hong Kong SAR), was arrested for protesting without a permit within a prohibited area, and was sentenced to a fine of SGD$5,000, with one week’s imprisonment in default[2,3,4].

      Offensive behaviour against race or religion

      Singapore's strict adherence to social cohesion and maintaining harmony of the city-state extents to both race and religion. Under Section 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, engaging in behaviour that wounds the feelings of any person may be found guilty under the Act[1].

      It's important to note that the law is intentionally vague, providing courts with a wide amount of discretion in considering whether or not a person engaged in unlawful behaviour.

      Due to the complexities relating to the Penal Code, this article provides a detailed breakdown of Sections 298 and 298A.

      An individual found guilty under Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code can be sentenced up to 3 years in prison and/or receive a fine as decided by the judge[2].

      It's important to note that these laws are actively enforced, please refer to the cases below.

      Case Studies

      Below are recent cases under Section 298 and 298A of the Penal Code:

      • In 2022, a man allegedly made remarks on social media to wound the feelings of the Christian community[3] and absconded to the UK to seek asylum[4].
        • In 2017, an Imam was fined SGD$4000 and repatriated after pleading guilty for publicly praying out loud in Arabic in his mosque. The prayer, despite not being deliberately malicious, could be interpreted as asking God to grant Muslims victory over Jews and Christians[5].

          Cases that occurred under the now repealed Sedition Act:

          • In 2009, a Protestant Christian couple were found guilty of sedition for distributing evangelical publications that casted Islam and Catholicism in a negative light. The couple were each sentenced to a total of 16 weeks’ imprisonment[6,7].

            Additional Information

            Controlled substances

            Singapore has established stringent laws regarding the possession and use of controlled substances, commonly referred to as illicit drugs. The country takes a zero-tolerance approach towards drugs, and it's important for visitors to understand and respect these laws. It's worth noting that Singaporean citizens and Permanent Residents are subject to drug laws even when outside of the country[1].

            Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, consequences for drug trafficking can be particularly severe in Singapore. For drug trafficking offences below the capital sentence threshold, individuals may face sentences of life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane[2]. In certain cases involving large quantities of specific controlled drugs (above the capital sentence threshold), there is a mandatory death sentence[3,4].

            Furthermore, abuse of medication, such as cough syrup (containing codeine) is also considered an offence under the Poisons Act[5].

            It is crucial for individuals to be fully aware of these laws and exercise utmost caution to avoid involvement with controlled substances.

            Visitors to Singapore should be mindful of the strict regulations surrounding controlled substances and prioritise compliance with the law to ensure their safety and well-being. It is advised to thoroughly familiarise oneself with the specific regulations and seek guidance from relevant authorities or legal professionals if needed.

            Case Studies

            • In 2023, Saridewi Binte Djamani, 45, was hanged after being convicted in 2018 for having in her possession, not less than 30.72 grammes of diamorphine (heroin). She was arrested in 2016 by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) for possible drug trafficking at her flat in Sengkang, Singapore[1,2].
              • In 2023, Mohd Aziz bin Hussain, 57, a Singaporean Malay man was hanged after being convicted for trafficking, not less than 49.98 grammes of diamorphine (heroin) in 2017[3,4].
                • In 2023, Tangaraju Suppiah, 46, was hanged after conspiring to smuggle 1kg (1017.9 grammes) of cannabis[5].
                  • In 2020, Yuen Ye Ming, 31, a British citizen, plead guilty to possession and trafficking of cannabis and methamphetamine (crystal meth). He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane[6].
                    • In 2017, a doctor was sentenced to 2 years jail and fined SGD$130,000 for supplying cough syrup containing codeine to substance abusers[7].
                      • In 2010, Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam, 33, was convicted of trafficking 42.72 grammes of diamorphine (heroin) through the Woodlands Checkpoint, and was hanged in 2022[4,5].
                        • In 2010, Phua Han Chuan Jeffery, 24, was arrested for trafficking 104.21 grammes of diamorphine (heroin) into Singapore at Woodlands Checkpoint. After several appeals, Phua was re-sentenced to life-long incarceration in 2016 due to impaired 'mental responsibility'[8,9].

                          Additional Information

                          Documentaries

                          Abuse of non-controlled substances

                          In addition to its strict regulations on controlled substances, Singapore also has stringent laws regarding the abuse of non-controlled substances. One example is the Intoxicating Substances Act, which prohibits certain activities related to the use of substances for the purpose of intoxication.

                          Under the Intoxicating Substances Act[1], it is considered an offence for an individual to supply or offer to supply substances with the purpose of intoxication[2]. Additionally, engaging in the inhalation of products that contain toluene, such as glue and paint thinner, or other solvents are also considered an offence under this act[3,4].

                          It is important for individuals to be aware of these laws and understand the potential legal consequences associated with the abuse of non-controlled substances in Singapore.

                          Additional Information

                          Vandalism

                          Singapore has stringent laws surrounding vandalism. Under the Vandalism Act 1966, acts of vandalism against public and private property can result in fines of up to SGD$2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years, and between three to eight strokes of the cane (with limited exceptions)[1].

                          Compared to some other countries where penalties for vandalism may be lower or less strictly enforced, Singapore maintains a firm stance on preserving public infrastructure, cleanliness, and fostering civic responsibility. While there are cities like Melbourne, Australia, where street art is encouraged in specific areas such as Hosier Lane, Singapore takes measures to ensure that unauthorised acts of vandalism are deterred.

                          Under Section 2 of the Vandalism Act, the following is considered acts of vandalism[2]:

                          (i) writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public property or private property any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing;

                          (ii) affixing, posting up or displaying on any public property or private property any poster, placard, advertisement, bill, notice, paper or other document; or

                          (iii) hanging, suspending, hoisting, affixing or displaying on or from any public property or private property any flag, bunting, standard, banner or the like with any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing; or

                          (b) stealing, destroying or damaging any public property;
                          Excerpt from Section 2 of the Vandalism Act 1966

                          Lawful Street Art

                          There are exemptions that allow legitimate artists to produce street art or public works. Authorised officers or appropriate statutory bodies must grant written authority for public property, while the written consent of the owner or occupier is required for private property[1].

                          To support artists, Singapore established the Public Art Trust (PAT) in 2014, which aims to bring art into public spaces. Additionally, the Public Art Tax Incentive Scheme (PATIS) provides tax incentives for organisations and individuals who donate to, commission, or maintain publicly accessible art.

                          By seeking proper permission, artists may have the opportunity to showcase their creations on a global stage.

                          Case Studies

                          • In 1994, Michael Peter Fay, 18, a US citizen, pleaded guilty to vandalising 18 cars through spray-painting, stealing signs, and property damage. Fay was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and four strokes of the cane, which was reduced from an initial six strokes after a request for clemency from the US president[1,2,3].
                            • In 2015, Andreas Von Knorre, 22, and Elton Hinz, 21, German citizens, pleaded guilty to breaking into an MRT train depot and spray-painting graffiti on a train carriage. Both were arrested in Malaysia and returned to Singapore. Both received nine months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane[4].
                              • In 2017, Lim Sin Ann, 52, was arrested for destroying multiple police cameras in Boon Lay Place. Lim received a four-month jail sentence, with one month served in lieu of caning due to age restrictions[5,6].
                                • In 2021, Wham Kwok Han Jolovan, 41, a Chinese citizen from Hong Kong SAR, was convicted on various charges including one count of vandalism, one count of participating in a public assembly without a permit, one count of refusing to sign a Police statement, and three charges related to an illegal gathering. The act of vandalism involved non-destructively affixing two A4-sized sheets of paper containing political messages on a panel inside an MRT train. As a result of the conviction, Wham received a combined penalty of SGD$8,000 in fines and a default sentence of 32 days' imprisonment[7,8].

                                  Additional Information

                                  Three-Quarter Tank Rule

                                  When travelling from Singapore to Malaysia in a Singaporean-registered vehicle, it is important to ensure that your fuel tank is at least three-quarters full to comply with the Three-Quarter Tank Rule.

                                  Failure to meet this rule can result in penalties, such as a composition sum of up to $500 or potential prosecution under Section 136 of the Customs Act 1960[1].

                                  It should be noted that enforcement of the rule is at the discretion of the customs officer, and there have been instances where drivers were allowed to turn around and refuel their vehicles without penalty[2,3]. However, there have been reports in 2022 of individuals being fined SGD$100 for attempting to cross the border without meeting the rule[4].

                                  The purpose of this rule, established in 1991, is to prevent drivers from evading fuel duties imposed in Singapore[5]. Additionally, it helps address the significant price disparity between subsidised RON95 fuel in Malaysia and fuel prices in Singapore[6].

                                  Forgetting to flush the toilet

                                  Under Section 16 of the Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations[1], neglecting to flush the toilet in a public restroom can result in a fine of up to SGD$150 for a first offence, increasing to SGD$500 for a second offence, and up to SGD$1000 for subsequent offences[2].

                                  Officials are known to conduct random checks, so it is always advisable to double-check and ensure that the cubicle is left in a clean and proper state before exiting.

                                  Failing to return used food trays

                                  When eating at hawker centres, coffee shops, or food courts, you are required to return used food trays and crockery to the correct location after you have finished eating. First-time offenders will be issued a written warning, and repeat offenders will be issued fines or charged in Court[1].

                                  When returning trays to the designated return stations, be mindful of the distinction between Halal trays and crockery, which are typically green, and non-Halal trays, often black or grey, with corresponding crockery and utensils (usually white). In Singapore, maintaining religious harmony is a valued social expectation. As such, this religious custom should be respected by everyone, including non-Muslims[2]. Additionally, scrape off food remnants into designated bins before returning your tray.